CTJ_Questions_and_Answers_Jan_25_2016.pdf

RFP SOL-176-16-000001

USAID Competitiveness, Trade and Jobs Activity in Central Asia

Answers to Questions submitted in response to RFP.

Question 1. Under Component Two, paragraph one p. 33, the RFP states that “USAID/Central Asia plans to use $7 million of project funds in an Innovation Facility within CTJ.” Does USAID intend to allow $7 million for contract support to partners in its entirety, or the funds are intended for project level administration of the Facility-- or both?

USAID’s Response:

USAID intends for $7M be used directly for the innovation facility. Contract partners should also calculate their administrative costs for handling these funds in addition to the $7M in funds for the innovation facility.

Question 2. Page 23, 34: Please clarify whether Context Indicators will be used to evaluate directly the impact of CTJ activities? Is the CTJ project required to track these indicators or would use of third party data sources be sufficient?

USAID’s Response:

Use of third party data would be sufficient.

Question 3. Page 51: How much regionally allocated funds of the project are available to increase exports within Central Asia and between Central Asia and South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India)?

USAID’s Response:

The amount of money within the budget to increase trade with the “rest of the world” is up to the offeror to propose.

Question 4. Page 51: How much bilateral funds of the project are available to increase exports between Central Asia and the rest of the world? Does the rest of the world include Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and China?

USAID’s Response:

The amount of money to increase trade with the “rest of the world” is up to the offeror to propose within their budget. The rest of the world includes all countries that fall outside of the five Central Asian Republics of the Former Soviet Union, including China, Turkey and Iraq.

However, some trade with Iran may fall under current United States Government restrictions.

Question 5. Interventions applied to horticultural sector. Can CTJ initiate its interventions to develop VC based on these studies or it should be pure/new studies? Reference to page 29 of

RFP.

Will facilitation, technical assistance and training be permissible to further develop existing or past Public and Private Dialog Platforms? (page 29)

USAID’s Response: There is a breadth of existing studies and information created by other USAID activities as well as other donors, which may be more than sufficient to inform and initiate work on different VCs. While existing studies included in the annex may serve as an initial reference, additional existing studies as well as potentially new studies may be needed as well to direct actions for developing VC. If existing information is insufficient, further studies may be carried out.

Each offeror is free to propose how to carry out its work. The RFP provides criteria for how the work should be carried out and the offeror should review the concepts presented and determine how within this framework they see best fit to carry it out.

Question 6. General Under the terms of this solicitation, can activity funds be used as Grants extended to local NGOs?

USAID’s Response:

A grant format cannot be applied under this contract.

Question 7. Representation in the region “The Contractor will establish a local representative in each of the five Central Asian countries.

Cost saving measures are encouraged wherever possible, therefore, only one full office is proposed in the budget”. Page 41 .

Does it mean that subcontractor cannot establish country sub offices in the areas of intervention.

USAID’s Response:

The contractor or its subcontractor(s) may establish sub offices, but as stated within the RFP, the offeror should seek to minimize costs for country-based representation.

Question 8. Page 16: Is the project permitted to provide assistance to the transport and logistics sector for their expansion, when the freight includes non-horticultural products?

USAID’s Response:

Yes, the offerors work and support of the transport and logistics sector may benefit other sectors aside from the horticultural sector.

Question 9. Can the project create multiple government relationships under a single forum to further facilitate and enhance discussions of common cross border issues?

USAID’s Response:

The offeror is free to propose how they would create relationships with government institutions.

This, will be judged and evaluated, along with the whole proposal, against the evaluation criteria within the RFP.

Question 10. In providing Supplemental Technical Assistance (p. 39-40), can the project solicit other USG funding to further implement the activities of the project?

USAID’s Response:

The offeror should create a fixed budget from which to operate within the budget available and not assume that additional funds will be made available beyond those initially budgeted.

Question 11. Like developing nations across the globe, the Central Asian nations need trade to grow and develop to be economically self-reliant. Except for oil and gas, these nations have not been able to compete in other sectors effectively. However, there are “model” nations (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) with historically similar economic and social demographics; and “model” nations (such as Singapore and Ireland) with perhaps similar economic, geographic but dissimilar social characteristics. What nations does USAID see as “Aspirant” nations for these Central Asian nations to model themselves against? Have there been any studies on this aspect and can these be shared?

USAID’s Response:

USAID has issued an RFP so that offerors will present their ideas and arguments for their approach. The criteria provided within the RFP is sufficient to orient offerors around developing the proposal. USAID does not have a fixed idea around an “aspirant” nation for which Central Asian Republics should model themselves on. However, the context and background section of the RFP as well as the overall activity goals should provide the offeror with the end result that USAID is seeking through CTJ.

Question 12. While economic development in these nations is already well on its way; given the magnitude and speed that is warranted - public-private partnerships is one of the essential routes to achieve this. Due to the geographical location of these five nations, they can “borrow” from the developed nations as well as the larger and growing emerging markets of India and China in the region. What private-public partnerships exist, if any, with these nations in the areas of (a) transportation, (b) bridges and road and such infrastructure building, and (c) horticulture and (d) information technology at the minimum? What, if any, such partnerships are with USAID’s funds that may be leveraged towards the current efforts in Horticulture, Transportation and Logistics?

USAID’s Response:

Please refer to reference material provided as well as investigate beyond this information to identify this information. It is up to the offeror to identify this information and include it within their proposal as they see fit.

Question 13. Foreign direct investment has played a critical role for many nations in their path toward economic development. Most of these nations have (or had) Economic Development or Enterprise Free Zones aimed at incentivizing foreign firms to set up businesses in their nations to benefit from spillover of technical and business know-how alongside much sought after capital from these firms. The SOW references two similar programmatic initiatives (REC and MEP – which are providing technical assistance and export readiness) that are ending in 2016.

What plans/activities exist in lieu of these activities and will USAID have other such economic development initiatives, particularly in the Horticulture and Transport and Logistics industries, given the priorities outlined in this SOW?

USAID’s Response:

There are currently no other planned regional economic trade and development activities beyond CTJ. However, on a country to country level, USAID has specific activities which are working in the horticulture sector (AVC, Agro Horizons and FTF). These are referenced within the RFP.

Question 14. For business development, free flow of information is critical and allowance for privatization, brokerage, wealth management and other similar practices may be essential.

There may be a need to unshackle policies and practices from limitations of independence and creativity to make the countries more competitive in the global markets. Is the leadership in these nations willing to work with USAID or its partner agencies to pursue these radical changes, thus allowing state law to supersede business law in the race to economic growth and development? If so, what such efforts are there and is there any research that can be shared?

USAID’s Response:

USAID works with the governments of the region to create a more enabling environment to promote increased trade. Reference material provided along with the RFP should provide an initial example of ways in which USG is working towards this. For further examples, USAID suggests to offerors to conduct their own research and queries to identify additional examples.

Question 15. Given the demographics provided on the youth in these nations that are very favorable in terms of age but not in terms of education or employability and the fact that these five nations’ capacity building efforts need to include investment in education, employment, health service sector minimally to engage and retain youth in the nation and encourage their growth and development: what funds and efforts does USAID and partner agencies plan over the next 5-10 years in this regard beyond the existing efforts (AVC, Agro Horizons, FTF)?

Particularly, what monies have been allocated or plan to be allocated by USAID and similar agencies in the education and training industries in the areas of horticulture, transportation and logistics industries?

USAID’s Response:

Currently, USAID/CA does not have any activities that specifically target youth beyond those mentioned in the question. Existing activities mentioned in the question as well the CTJ procurement are the current USAID funded activities working on the areas of horticulture development. USAID funded REC also works on horticultural development as well as transport and logistics.

Question 16. Given the geopolitical instability surrounding these nations, the recent financial market issues in neighboring China, how much does USAID and partner agencies anticipate in security Export Control, Border Security, and Cyber Security in these nations?

USAID’s Response:

USAID has not anticipated these factors mentioned above within the design of CTJ.

Question 17. What efforts have been made by the USAID, ADB, and the World Bank to work with multinationals in the finance industry to provide credit and credit guarantees, small business financing, microfinancing and promotion of financial education in these nations?

What is the expected investment in these regards from the financial industry? What private-public consortiums, if any, exist to support such activities?

USAID’s Response:

It is up to the offeror to research the current state of credit and business finance in Central Asia.

While finance is part of this project, it is only one of the elements included, along with others .

However, as part of the proposal the offeror is free to make the connection with how finance and micro-finance will help to achieve project goals. This will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.

Question 18. Given the increasing role of gender equality in the development agenda of all nations, what efforts, if any, are done in these nations toward women’s empowerment and is there any investment by public or private sector agencies toward this agenda in terms of a) education b) safety and c) entrepreneurship for women?

USAID’s Response:

Gender is mentioned in the RFP, along with reference documents that are either included or can be found online. It is up to the offeror to research this information.

Question 19. How does the data collection underway by logistics companies on behalf of ADB (page 16) fit into the landscape analysis discussed on page 30? Will that information be made available to us? In which countries are these firms located?

USAID’s Response: The ADB analysis can be an input to the landscape analysis deliverable (pg 30), which is due within 6 months after award. If necessary, USAID will facilitate making this information available to the successful offeror after award. The awardee may also include other sources of information to complete the task. The firms are located in all CAREC member countries.

Question 20. As offered in the tender document there are a significant number of deliverables listed in chapter C.5 RESULTS FRAMEWORK/LOGICAL FRAMEWORK - VI. Activity Description, Components, and Results (page 28-31, 33, 35, 38-39) which look reasonable and feasible. However, given some of the prevailing conditions some few delivery dates, seem ambitious. For example, some issues related to NTBs along trade corridors in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan could prove difficult and may take some time to agree with partners. Are there flexibilities on delivery dates of some of the deliverables based on risks outside of contractor control, and how best to deal with this? Should such country contexts and risks be discussed at inception stage or is the preference for these to be identified and discussed prior to submission? If the latter, will this be a common assessment across all potential suppliers?

USAID’s Response:

USAID believes that the delivery schedule in the RFP offers sufficient flexibility in the delivery schedule. As noted in Section L on page 105, offerors must address the complexity and dependency of activities required to achieve the results sought in their proposals. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in Section M.

Question 21. According to the activity results framework (page 22) indicators listed below are illustrative and indicative. According to AMEP “The contractor may draw upon relevant USAID standard indicators and develop custom indicators, as required” (page 48). The next page is mentioning “Indicators below are illustrative”. Is this limited to indicators on goal level, or similar to indicators “At lower levels (attributable to the contract)” too? This would be specifically relevant for performance indicators largely influenced by macro-economic environmental factors, e.g. the “decision not to become a labor migrant, are improved by 30%” (page 50).

USAID’s Response: The context indicators, activity indicators and activity level targets are all illustrative. Offerors may propose their own indicators.

Question 22. Clarification on the term “Leveraged Funds”: according to the solicitation document (component 2, page 33),

a. USAID/Central Asia plans to use $7 million of project funds in an Innovation Facility within CTJ. These funds will be leveraged on a one-to-one basis from external partners”: which external partners USAID has in mind – other donors, commercial or multilateral banks, national governments, or private equity investors?

USAID’s Response:USAID leaves it up to the offeror to determine with whom to establish partnerships.

b. As “leveraged funds will not be added into the contract”, what is the meaning of “to use $7 million … in an Innovation Facility within CTJ”?

USAID’s Response: As stated on page 33, the implementer will use $7 million of contract funds to incentivize innovation at a one-to-one leveraging criteria. The resulting leveraged funds will not be added to the contract.

c. One of the selection criteria is “Co-finance at least 50% of the total investment.” Are multilateral banks eligible to provide loans to beneficiaries as co-financing?

USAID’s Response: As noted on page 34 of the RFP, loans may be used to meet matching requirements, however in-kind contributions will not be considered. USAID leaves it up to the offeror to determine with whom to establish partnerships.

Question 23. Regarding L.7.D, Management Approach, page 109, in reference to the Draft First Year Work Plan, could USAID please clarify whether offerors should include all activities for all of the countries or provide an illustrative list?

USAID’s Response: The illustrative list should mirror what and where the offeror would actually

do. Therefore, the offeror should include representative activities within all the countries where they would implement.

Question 24. Regarding L.7. instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, page 105, the RFP requires writing samples from each proposed key personnel. Could USAID please clarify the page limit for each writing sample?

USAID’s Response:

The writing samples can be up to ten pages, though shorter samples (1-5 pages) are encouraged and acceptable.

Question 25. Could USAID please provide the age range defined for youth? In addition, on page 35 under Component Three, the RFP refers to the “migrant labor population” as a targeted population under this activity. Can USAID please clarify if beneficiaries under Component Three include youth and labor migrants, or only labor migrants within the youth age range?

USAID’s Response:

● Age range for youth is from 15 - 29 years of age

● Both youth and labor migrants are beneficiaries under component three

Question 26. We anticipate using local service providers to produce deliverables or provide technical assistance on behalf of the project. Would the funds for these activities be a permissible use of some portion of $7 million Innovation Facility or exclusive of it?

All funds from the innovation facility must be matched with co-investment from partnerships and demonstrate the importance of getting involvement from the private sector and other actors to support the activity.

Question 27. In Section C on page 24, the activity-level targets include a 300 percent increase in the value of exports in the assisted sectors and a 50 percent increase in exports of USG-assisted firms. Could USAID clarify what the precise measure of USG-assisted firm-level exports should be (value or volume)?

USAID’s Response:

Increase in exports should be based on value.

Question 28. On page 30, there is a deliverable in Year 4 which states that “At least 4 policy dialogues linked to Component 3 to connect job seekers and industry.” Could USAID please elaborate on what kinds of policy dialogues are anticipated that will attract job seekers to horticulture or transport/logistics jobs? Would USAID consider modifying this deliverable to four matchmaking events between job seekers and industry?

USAID’s Response:

It is up to offerors to propose their approach to policy dialogues. USAID will not change the deliverable at this time.

Question 29. Section C, page 31 states: “During year 3, sign MOU’s to form cross border private sector alliances where feasible.” Can these private sector alliances be formed among associations that represent private sector firms, as well as among private sector firms themselves?

USAID’s Response:

As long as the alliances involve the private sector they are acceptable

Question 30. Section C, page 33 lists $7 million for the Innovation Facility whereas section F.5.1 on page 50 cites $4 million for the Innovation Facility. Can USAID please clarify the total amount to be budgeted under the Innovation Facility?

USAID’s Response:

The value of the Innovation Facility is $7 Million. The referenced $4 million Innovation Facility on page 50 has been amended to $7 million.

Question 31. Section C.8 on page 41 states the Contractor will establish a local representative in each of the five Central Asian countries and goes on to say only one full office is proposed in the budget. Can USAID please clarify if representative offices with more than one staff person outside the project headquarters are permitted?

USAID’s Response:

Yes, Representative offices with more than one staff person outside project headquarters are permitted. Offerors will need to propose their own staffing plans. As stated within the RFP, the offeror should seek to minimize costs for country-based representation.

Question 32. The RFP calls for key personnel to submit English-language writing samples and exempts these samples from the page limit. Could USAID please advise on a desired page length for these samples and clarify which annex they should be presented in?

The writing samples can be up to ten pages, though shorter samples (1-5 pages) are encouraged and acceptable. Writing samples should be presented in an annex to the technical proposal.

Question 33. Section C indicates that the activity will be implemented in the five Central Asian countries by “interacting with businesses, trade authorities and governments in these aforementioned countries as well as in foreign markets specifically Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.” Section C, Component 4, on page 39, includes the Caucasus as well. Section F.3, Place of Performance, includes only the five Central Asian countries. Would USAID consider including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and the Caucasus under F.3 Place of Performance?

USAID’s Response:

Implementation will take place within the five Central Asian Republics. However, the RFP is seeking to establish greater commercial relationships with neighboring regions and the world, with particular emphasis on South Asia and Afghanistan.

Question 34. Section C.5 (p. 23) states that the contractor "will develop its own framework corresponding to the contractor's technical approach and will submit it to USAID for approval."

Section L.7.D (p. 109) provides a list of Annexes to the Technical Proposal, however, does not state that a logical framework is required. Would USAID please clarify whether it expects offerors to propose their own logical framework as a part of their draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan?

USAID’s Response:

The goal, purpose and sub-purposes of the results framework as written on p. 23 of Section C.5 of the RFP should be used as written and not modified. However, aside from these aside from these the offeror may propose their own logical framework that reflects their proposal. The logical framework may be submitted in the annex.

Question 35. Section C.5 (p. 23) of the RFP states that context indicators are "tracked by the activity but not directly attributable to it." Would USAID please clarify as to whether offerors are obligated to present and fulfill targets for context indicators?

USAID’s Response:

Offerors are not obligated to fulfill context indicators but they do have to track them. They are provided by third parties.

Question 36. In Section F.6 (p.57-58), the RFP refers to key personnel position titles as Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Coordinator and Communications Director while Section M.3.b (p. 120) refers to Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Specialist and Communications Specialist? Please clarify the correct title for these positions.

USAID’s Response:

Please use titles provided on p. 57 - 58.

Question 37. Additionally, in reference to the list of page-exempt required documents (Section L.7 (p. 105)), would USAID please confirm that the Diagram of the Staff/Organizational Chart can be included in the technical proposal as a non-counting page?

As noted on page 105, the diagram for the Staff/Organizational Chart can be included in the annex to the technical proposal and does not count against the page limit.

Question 38. Section L.7.D (p. 108) states that “A clear connection between the Offeror’s proposed approach and the staffing plan must be demonstrated”. Will USAID please confirm that the staffing plan can be included as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count against the page limit?

USAID’s Response:

As noted on page 105, the diagram for the Staff/Organizational Chart can be included in the annex to the technical proposal and does not count against the page limit.

However, as noted on page 108, within the page limit the Management Approach section of the technical proposal must describe the staffing plan, describe the proposed locations and staffing structure, including the use of long term staff or consultants, demonstrate a clear connection between the Offeror’s proposed approach and the staffing plan, etc.

Question 39. Section L.7.D (p. 109) states that offerors must include the Draft First Year Annual Work Plan. Please confirm that the Draft First Year Annual Work Plan can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the page limit.

USAID’s Response:

The draft annual work plan must be included as part of the technical proposal and counts against the page limit. However, the page limit has been increased to 35 pages.

Question 40. Similarly, Section L.7.D (p. 109) states that offerors must include the Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Please confirm that the Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan can be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal that does not count toward the page limit.

USAID’s Response:

The draft Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan must be included as part of the technical proposal and count against the page limit. However, the page limit has been increased to 35 pages.

Question 41. Section L.7.D (p. 109) states that the draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan should include output and impact indicators, while Section F.5.1 (p. 48) states that the final AMEP should include output and outcome indicators. Would USAID please clarify as to whether this distinction was intentional, and if so, whether outcome indicators need not be included in the draft AMEP?

USAID’s Response:

Impact, outcome, and output indicators should be included in the draft AMEP.

Question 42. Would USAID consider exempting the short-term technical assistance matrix from the page limitation set for this proposal?

USAID’s Response:

A matrix of short-term technical assistance may be included as part of the diagram of staff/organizational chart in an annex that does not count against the page limit (pg. 105).

Question 43. Technical Approach. On Page 105, under “A. Technical Approach”, please clarify the sentence: “It must be realistic and result in an evaluation and design within budget.”

USAID’s Response:

This sentence is amended to read “It must be realistic and designed within budget.”

Question 44. Are all the key personnel expected to be based in the main project office?

USAID’s Response:

Unless so stated in the RFP, each offeror is free to propose their organizational matrix and staffing plan within their proposal.

Question 45. Per page 105 of the RFP, Offerors are to submit writing samples for key personnel candidates. Please clarify what constitutes a writing sample. Also, how long should the writing sample be? Will USAID accept redacted writing samples?

USAID’s Response:

The writing samples can be up to ten pages, though shorter samples (1-5 pages) are encouraged and acceptable. A writing sample is something the proposed key personnel wrote for a professional or academic audience. Redacted samples are acceptable, but must be clear and understandable.

Question 46. Page 105 of the RFP lists the documents that are exempt from the 25 technical proposal page limit. Please confirm that the following documents are also exempt from the 25 page limitation: Cover Letter, Draft First Year Work Plan, and Draft Activity M&E Plan.

USAID’s Response:

The cover letter is exempt from the page limitation. The draft annual work plan and draft M&E plan must be included as part of the technical proposal and count against the page limit. The page limit has been increased to 35 pages.

Question 47. Please provide allocation of project LOE for these locations and clarify if they fall into the category as “Regional”. Will any travel be required to Pakistan or Afghanistan by project personnel?

USAID’s Response:

Implementation will take place within the five Central Asian Republics. However, the RFP is seeking to establish greater commercial relationships with neighboring regions and the world, with particular emphasis on South Asia and Afghanistan. It is up to the offeror to develop the budget and propose travel options both within Central Asia and to/from neighboring countries.

Question 48. Section C.5 V1 states the following: “USAID/Central Asia will implement CTJ through a hybrid indefinite quantity contract that allows USAID to define 80% of the activities and 80% of the funding at the time of award. This contracting vehicle allows USAID, other donors, governments or partners to define the remaining 20% of the activities and to identify 20% of the funding at a later date. This additional 20% will be added into the USAID award.”

Can USAID please provide any breakdown of LOE and associated costs by Components provided in Section C?

Offerors should develop technical and cost proposals based on their own approaches to achieving the results in the RFP. However, in order for offerors to understand the relative importance of each component, USAID developed approximate percentages for resource allocation across the components. These percentages are illustrative. However, as noted on page 113, Component 4 (CLIN 0002) cannot exceed 20% of the cost proposal.

Component 1 - 30% Component 2 - 40% Component 3 - 10% Component 4 (CLIN 0002) - 20%

Question 49. Page 105 states the following: “Offerors should describe their approach in relation to the Activity Results Framework described in Section V of the statement of work.” Page 23 states that “The contractor will develop its own framework corresponding to the contractor’s technical approach and will submit it to USAID for approval.”

These two requirements appear contradictory. Should contractors describe their approach in relation to the “Activity Results Framework described in Section V of the statement of work” or should contractors “develop its own framework corresponding to the contractor’s technical approach”?

Is the reference to Section V an error as there is no evident Section V of the statement of work?

USAID’s Response: Section V in this case refers to Section C.5 Results Framework/Logical Framework of the RFP SOW. Offerors will need to describe their approach in relation to the Activity Results Framework described in Section C.5 of the statement of work.

Offerors should utilize the activity goal, purpose and sub-purpose described as written in the Activity Results Framework in Section C.5 of the statement of work located on p. 23 of the proposal. However, offerors may submit their own indicators and activities to fulfill the sub-purposes, purpose, and goal for CTJ.

Question 50. Section C on page 34 states that contract support through the $7 million Innovation Facility can take the form of technical assistance, matchmaking, and subcontracts.

Are other forms of support anticipated? Could procurement of technologies and equipment be funded under this mechanism on a cost-share basis?

USAID’s Response: Yes, procurement of technologies and equipment can be funded under this mechanism on a cost-share basis. Any additional form of support would need to be considered when it is proposed.

Question 51. Page 66: Are firms incorporated in the former Eastern Bloc (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Romania) eligible to provide services under Code 935, Code 110 or both?

11. Section H.2 (p.66) states that the authorized geographic codes are 937 and 110, but section L.8.b).(v).(E) states that the geographic code is 937 only. Would USAID please confirm that both 937 and 110 are authorized geographic codes?

USAID’s Response: The authorized geographic codes for procurement of goods and services under this contract are 937 and 110. More information on these codes can be found in 22 CFR 228.

Question 52. Contract Type: Please elaborate on the estimated Activity percentage distribution between the two CLINS: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ).

USAID’s Response: As noted on page 113 of the RFP, The breakdown of costs for this hybrid will be at least 80 percent for the CPFF - Contract Line Item Number (CLIN 0001) and at most 20 percent for the IDIQ – CLIN 0002.

Question 53. In reference to this RFP issued by USAID, is there an allowance to award line action items to different firms based on core competency? If so, please clarify how you will engaged the awarded firms to work with each other based on awarded work by the contracting officer.

USAID’s Response: USAID/ CA anticipates to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

Question 54. In reference to this RFP issued by USAID, should this be a concerted effort by a “Prime” vendor firm to put together a team of partnering firms in order to present a comprehensive “all-or-nothing” proposal? Or can a firm present a proposal that addresses only its areas of expertise and then, if awarded, will be directed by the contracting officer to work with an awarded “Prime” vendor?

USAID’s Response: It is up to prime vendor to create partnerships with sub vendors. The Contracting Officer will not direct prime offeror to work with subs.

Question 55. Reference page 66, Section H1, New Rates for Services, Construction and Security Guards: Is the new rate(s) for services and security guards in USD? Is that an hourly rate?

USAID’s Response: These rates related to DBA insurance premium and are not hourly salary rates.

Question 56. Reference page 106, Section C, Contractor Past Performance: Does a performing subcontractor need to submit past performance to major contractor performing at less than 15% of total effort/work?

USAID’s Response: The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and its major subcontractors and joint venture partners. If an amount of a subcontract is less than 15% of the total work, this subcontractor is not a major and a prime offeror does not need to submit past performance information for such subcontractor.

Question 57. Reference page 53, F.5.3, Deliverables, Delivery Schedule and Fixed fee Pay Schedule: are the deliverables, delivery schedule and fixed fee pay schedule for us?

USAID’s Response: The Delivery Schedule and Fixed fee Pay Schedule shows how fixed fee will be paid to a contractor based on deliverables submitted.

Question 58. Are multilateral agencies (public international organizations) eligible to bid on the tender?

USAID’s Response: As noted in the RFP, this procurement will be conducted under full and open competition procedures, pursuant to Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR Chapter 1). All types of organizations are eligible to compete. However, any organization submitting a proposal, including multilateral agencies, would need to accept the RFP terms and conditions and be subject to the FAR and AIDAR clauses listed in the RFP under a subsequent contract. Further, as noted in the RFP, the authorized geographic codes for this procurement are are 937 and 110. Offerors must be located within the authorized geographic areas for eligibility.

Question 59. Does USAID have a standard template for “Performance Indicator Reference Sheet” and a “Performance Indicator Tracking Table (PITT) spreadsheet”, as mentioned on page 49?

USAID’s Response: The PITT template is attached.

Question 60. Are the grades and respective salary levels, as lined out in the compensation guidelines (Attachment_J._9_CAR_Local_Compensation_Plan-1) indicative or binding?

USAID’s Response: The Local Compensation Plan is the instrument for cost realism and cost reasonableness analysis and cannot be exceeded without a waiver from the Mission Director.

See AIDAR 722.170 Employment of third country nationals (TCN's) and cooperating country nationals (CCN's).

Question 61. Is it necessary to have US company as a partner for TCN Company to bid this project.

USAID’s Response: There is no requirement for partnership with US company, however, a TCN Company should be in compliance with the authorized geographic codes for procurement of goods and services under this contract.

Question 62. Estimated award value is $20 to $24 million for five years. This includes reimbursement, cost plus fixed fee (around 80% CLIN 0001) and IDIQ cost (around 20%). What about the amount of $7 million which will leverage to market. Is this $7 million included in CLIN 1 & 2. According to page 33, these leveraged funds will not be added into the contract. Again Page 113, within the CPFF budget offerors should include $7 million for innovation subcontracts. Please explain.

Innovation Subcontracts. Is the $7 million for innovation subcontracts part of the estimated value of award of $20 million - $24 million or in addition to that amount?

USAID’s Response: USAID’s Response $7M Innovation Fund is part of CPFF CLIN 0001 and Offerors should include this amount in their proposal budgets under CLIN 0001. See updated Attachment J.6 Budget Template Revised.

Question 63. C.8 Representation in the Region, page 41. Could USAID please confirm that existing USAID project offices cannot be used to establish regional representation in each of the countries as this would significantly disadvantage non-incumbents from a cost-competitiveness perspective?

USAID’s Response: USAID will not evaluate proposals favorably to those offerors who have representative offices in the region.

Question 64. F.6. Key personnel, page 57 In section F.6 Key Personnel, RFP requests that several candidates have an “advanced degree or equivalent experience”. Will USAID please confirm that ‘advanced degree’ refers to a U.S. Master’s degree equivalent or higher?

USAID’s Response: USAID is not setting minimum education requirements for Key Personnel under this RFP. For the COP and DCOP, the RFP states that the candidate should have an advanced degree or equivalent experience in business, economics or a related field. It is up to offerors to identify and proposed Key Personnel candidates that have the education and experience to perform the duties listed for each position in the RFP.

Question 65. L.7. Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, page 105, and L.7.D. Subcontractors/Consortia partner, page 109. Are the Implementation Plan mentioned on the top of page 105 and the Draft Annual Work Plan mentioned on page 109 the same document? If not, could USAID please clarify the difference?

USAID’s Response: Yes, this is the same document.

Question 66. Attachment J.6 Budget Template. BUDGET SUMMARY SPREADSHEET:

PERSONNEL PROPOSED (“Personnel List” Tab) contains a “Commentary” Column. Please clarify what kind of comments are expected in this spreadsheet. Furthermore, there is a requirement to include current annual salary and proposed starting annual salary. Salary history will be provided in the EBDs for all named personnel, and only one column for “Annual Salary” is provided in the spreadsheet. Please confirm if current salary data is required in this spreadsheet, and if this information is to be included in the “Commentary” column

USAID’s Response: “Commentary” column is for any information regarding salary rates for personnel – if TCN waiver is required, explanation why salary rate exceeds previous rate that listed in Biodata Sheet, etc.

Question 67. Section L.7(D) on page 109 of the RFP implies that the Draft Year 1 Work Plan and the AMEP be presented with the Management Plan narrative. To respond comprehensively to the RFP requirements, we believe that at least five pages will be required for each section.

Given the tight 25-page limit on the technical proposal, would USAID allow offerors to present the Draft Year 1 Work Plan and AMEP as annexes to the proposal?

L.7. Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, page 105. The draft Work Plan and draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan are not included in the bulleted list of required documents exempt from the technical approach page limit. Please clarify that these two documents are to be included in the management approach and are included in the 25 page technical approach page limit. If they are to be included in the technical approach page limit, would USAID consider increasing the page limit for the technical approach? Alternatively, would USAID consider moving the draft Work Plan and Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to the list of documents exempt from the technical approach page limit?

3. Would USAID please confirm that graphics are exempt from the page limitation? May we insert them as unnumbered pages in the technical proposal to aid in proposal review, or should they be placed in an annex?

Section L.7 on page 105 exempts a number of proposal documents from the page limitation and goes on to say that no additional annexes may be incorporated into the proposal. However, Section L.7(E), Annexes to the Technical Proposal, on page 109 lists only five approved annexes which do not include 1) Past Performance References and Performance in Using Small Business Concerns, 2) Key Support Staff CVs, 3) Key Personnel Writing Samples, 4) Results Framework, and 5) Organizational Chart. Could USAID clarify which annexes are approved and where the required proposal documents listed above should be presented?

L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 105 And L.7.E, Annexes to the Technical Proposal, page 109.

On the top of page 105, the RFP provides a list of required documents that are exempt from the page limitation. On page 109, instructions are provided on documents to include in the annexes. It is our assumption that the following documents should be included in the annexes.

Could USAID please confirm that the following list of documents should be included in annexes to the technical proposal?

• Results framework with indicators

• Diagram of the staff/organizational chart (as attachment)

• Key Personnel CVs (not to exceed 3 pages per individual)

• Key Personnel writing samples

• Letters of Commitment from key personnel

• Letters of Commitment from major subcontractors and/or consortia partners

• Key Support Staff CVs (not to exceed 2 pages per individual)

• Past Performance References

• Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan

• Environmental Compliance

Annexes. The RFP mentions several inputs/documents that need to be included in the final technical proposal as an attachment or annex, but these inputs/documents are not included in section L.7.E. Annexes to Technical Proposal. Please confirm that the following inputs/documents should be included in the final technical proposal as an annex: Results Framework with Indicators, Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, Diagram of the Staff/Organizational Chart, Key Personnel Writing Samples, Key Support Staff CVs, and Draft First Year Annual Work Plan.

USAID’s Response: the following documents are not exempt from the page limitation and should be part of Technical Proposal:

• Draft First Year Annual Work Plan (2-3 pages)

• Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (2-3 pages)

Question 68. Section L.7, page 105 of the RFP states that Key Personnel CVs should not exceed three pages per individual, whereas page 109 states that Key Personnel Resumes should not exceed two pages. Could USAID clarify the page limit for Key Personnel CVs? Could USAID also clarify whether key personnel references can be presented separately in the Key Personnel CV Annex?

L.7 and L.7.C, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, pages 106 and 109.

On page 105 the RFP states that Key Personnel CVs can be 3 pages maximum. However, on page 109, it states they must be 2 pages maximum. Could USAID please provide clarification on the page limit for Key Personnel CVs?

Per page 109 of the RFP, Offerors must provide a minimum of three references for each key personnel candidate. Page 105 states that key personnel resumes should not exceed three (3) pages, but page 109 states key personnel resumes should not exceed two (2) pages. Please clarify the page limit for key personnel resumes. Also, given the limited number of pages allowed for each key personnel resume, will USAID allow Offerors to provide key personnel references on a separate page or extend the page limit for each key personnel resume to three pages?

Section L.7 (p. 105) lists all documents that are required, but exempt from the proposal page limitation. Bullet 7 states that the Key Personnel CVs should not exceed 3 pages per individual while Section L.7.E.(1) (p. 109) states that Key Personnel resumes should not exceed 2 pages per resume. Please confirm that Key Personnel CVs should not exceed 3 pages per individual.

USAID’s Response: Page limit for Key Personnel CVs is 3 pages per individual. References could be presented separately.

Question 69. Section L.7(C) on page 106 defines a major subcontractor as one who is performing at least 15 percent of the total effort, whereas Section L.7(E)(3) on page 109 defines a major subcontractor as one whose costs exceed 20 percent of the total proposed cost. Could USAID clarify which definition prevails?

With regard to the definition of a major subcontract, Section L.7.C (p.106) defines one as a subcontractor who is performing at least 15% of the total effort/work while page 109 Section L.7.E.(3) defines a major subcontractor as one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost. Would USAID please confirm whether the definition of a major subcontractor is one who performs at 15% or 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost?

L.7.C and L.7.E, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, pages 106 and 110:

on page 106, the RFP states that “major” subcontractors are defined as performing at least 15% of the total effort/work. On page 109, it states that they are defined as those whose cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost. Is it USAID’s intention that “major” subcontractors must meet both these criteria or is the intention that only one of these criteria needs to be met?

USAID’s Response: Major subcontractor is defined as subcontractor who performing at least 15% of the total effort/work. The RFP will be amended to incorporate the change.

Question 70. Section L.6 on page 103 states that “the offeror must submit the proposal via e-mail with up to 4.5 MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.).”

Would USAID please confirm that the technical proposal may be submitted in PDF format, which is compatible with Microsoft Office?

On page 103, the RFP states that “the offeror must submit the proposal via e-mail with up to 4.5 MB limit per email compatible with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, etc.) and/or WordPerfect in a MS Windows environment.” Would USAID be open to offerors submitting the technical and cost narrative volumes in a PDF format?

Proposal Submission. Will USAID accept the final technical proposal in PDF format? Will USAID also accept the final cost proposal in PDF format with the budget submitted in MS Excel format?

USAID’s Response: A technical and cost proposals and cost narratives can be submitted in PDF format and a budget must be in Excel format.

Question 71. Section L.7(C)(d)(3)(B) on page 107 does not define “recent” as it relates to subcontract reports submitted to eSRS. Would USAID accept submission of only 10 relevant SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

USAID’s Response: As RFP states, Contracting Officer establishes the timeframe for “recent” (Section L.7(C)(d)(3)(B)), but this was not defined in the RFP. This section is revised as follows:

“To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of contracts over the past 3 years for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of up to 10 similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.”

Question 72. Section L.8(A), Salary and Wages, on page 114 states that salaries for long-term and short-term CCN staff must not exceed a threshold as specified in the Local Compensation Plan (LCP). The Local Compensation Plans (Attachment J.9) for Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan denominate salary thresholds in US dollars, but the Kazakhstan LCP is denominated in Kazakh Tenge. Would USAID consider denominating the Kazakhstan Local Compensation Plan in U.S. dollars, so as to maintain consistency and equity throughout all five countries?

Local Compensation Plans (LCP) are provided for the locations of the RFP, however Kazakhstan was the only LCP in local currency. Since USAID provided the other LCPs in US Dollars, is it USAID’s intent to include Kazakhstan in local currency and if so, does USAID have a specific exchange rate for Offerors to use or should Offerors just provide the exchange rate used?

USAID’s Response: The LCP for Kazakhstan is currently denominated in Tenge. Offerors must propose a reasonable exchange rate based on current and projected exchange rates. If the LCP for Kazakhstan is revised during the timeframe of this solicitation, offerors will be notified via an amendment with further guidance.

Question 73. To ensure that the best available candidates are ultimately hired onto the successful offeror’s program, would USAID consider declaring non-exclusivity for all local personnel?

USAID Response: USAID strongly discourages exclusivity arrangements with local personnel.

Question 74. Section L.8(A), Salary and Wages, on page 114 states that the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) is $167,000/year ($642.31/day). Per AIDAR 752.7007, can USAID please confirm that the CST is $170,400/year and $655.38/day (effective January 1, 2016)?

L.8.b.v.A, Salary and Wages, page 114 On page 114, the RFP indicates that direct salaries and wages for long-term and short-term expatriate staff as well as home office support must not exceed the Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) in the amount of $167,000.00/year ($642.31/day). However, the current rate for organizations without a Certified SES Performance Appraisal System is $170,400 ($655.38/day) for 2016.